Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Reform Government Surveillance

reformgovernmentsurveillance.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 223 posts

Re: Reform Government Surveillance

#31

Post by Debugreality »

tkellogg wrote: post #13

I find it interesting how the concept of countries and nationalities seems to becoming less important. Now (as opposed to a hundred years ago) we communicate with people in foreign countries on a daily basis - even countries whose governments have hostile relationships with. This is definitely a CYA (cover your ass) maneuver designed to mitigate the political hit these companies are taking. At the same time, these co…

I agree, virtual worlds, offshore workers, telepresence and many other new technologies are creating a new global culture that is already beginning to clash with the concepts of countries and governments.

Perhaps a starting point may be the rise of global political parties that can work together across multiple countries?

Re: Reform Government Surveillance

#32

Post by sinak »

A bit surprised by some of the errors on the site.

- Tweet button doesn't have a link

- G+ share button isn't working

- Opengraph tags point to a missing image-url, so Facebook shares don't have an image associated.

I think maybe this hit HN before they were quite ready for launch - I'm guessing these'll be fixed pretty quickly.

Excellent move by the companies involved though. A lot of advocacy organizations have been pushing these companies to come out publicly meaningful surveillance law reform, and this is a great start.

Re: Reform Government Surveillance

#33

Post by Smerity »

teamgb wrote: post #28
pg wrote: post #19

Among other things, this is the tipping point for how Snowden will be viewed. If all these powerful companies agree, in an unprecedented show of unanimity, that this is an important problem, then Snowden is ipso facto a hero for bringing it to our attention. The curious thing is, I feel the linkage works in the other direction too. If Snowden had been caught and was now having his brains scrambled by solitary confine…

Not once does the name "Edward Snowden" appear anywhere on the web-page or open letter! These companies are simply grand-standing to further their own ambition. They don't care what happens to Snowden, they deny even his very existence.

Edward Snowden isn't mentioned, no, but it's largely due to him that the debate and recent revelations have been so heavily discussed by so many.

We'd known about strange telecommunication interception by governments for years[1] but Snowden's disclosures and the following saga brought it to the attention of the world by providing a theatrical backdrop for the media to start using. Now it's something that normal people know about, not just techies.

Regulating government surveillance is the issue these companies are best positioned to support. If they'd explicitly mentioned Snowden, the discussion could quickly be derailed.

[1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Room_641A and many more

Re: Reform Government Surveillance

#35

Post by TWAndrews »

tomphoolery wrote: post #23
ekianjo wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On Internet you have the choice of which service to use, that's the key difference. You don't want Google ? Use DuckDuckGo. You don't want Microsoft ? Use Linux systems. And so on. The issue with the government is that you are tracked by default, on your mobile phone and on your online activity. You cannot opt out .

This. We can make as many comparisons as we want but at the end of the day, if I don't like the way Facebook is doing their business I can just delete my account. I can't just delete my Social Security Number if I'm opposed to the US's continued investment into the war on drugs as well as its military strikes overseas. Nor can I really retaliate to a country on earth where I don't have to be afraid of the government…

It's also the stark differences in the consequences of misuse. Google can use my information to serve me diabolically targeted ads. The government can put me in jail. It's not that I trust Google more, it's that they have vastly less power to harm me even if their intentions are bad.

Re: Reform Government Surveillance

#37

Post by vertr07 »

sinak wrote: post #32

A bit surprised by some of the errors on the site. - Tweet button doesn't have a link - G+ share button isn't working - Opengraph tags point to a missing image-url, so Facebook shares don't have an image associated. I think maybe this hit HN before they were quite ready for launch - I'm guessing these'll be fixed pretty quickly. Excellent move by the companies involved though. A lot of advocacy organizations have bee…

Maybe this wasn't meant to be launched yet?

Re: Reform Government Surveillance

#38

Post by raldi »

pwang wrote: post #22

> we are focused on keeping user’s data secure ARGH! Close to a trillion dollars of net corporate value, and they can't afford a decent grammarian when they write an open letter to the President?! (Hint: It should be "users'".)

Good catch! I passed your comment on to Google's liaison to R.G.S., and she's working to get it fixed.

Let's see how long it takes from here. :)

Re: Reform Government Surveillance

#39

Post by friism »

pg wrote: post #19

Among other things, this is the tipping point for how Snowden will be viewed. If all these powerful companies agree, in an unprecedented show of unanimity, that this is an important problem, then Snowden is ipso facto a hero for bringing it to our attention. The curious thing is, I feel the linkage works in the other direction too. If Snowden had been caught and was now having his brains scrambled by solitary confine…

I feel the same way, and have also been hoping for internet companies to put a stake in the ground.

On the other hand, it frustrates me that the tipping point for how Snowden's legacy will be viewed is action by a set of corporations, and not action by elected officials, the media, or an informed public...

Re: Reform Government Surveillance

#40

Post by pg »

teamgb wrote: post #28
pg wrote: post #19

Among other things, this is the tipping point for how Snowden will be viewed. If all these powerful companies agree, in an unprecedented show of unanimity, that this is an important problem, then Snowden is ipso facto a hero for bringing it to our attention. The curious thing is, I feel the linkage works in the other direction too. If Snowden had been caught and was now having his brains scrambled by solitary confine…

Not once does the name "Edward Snowden" appear anywhere on the web-page or open letter! These companies are simply grand-standing to further their own ambition. They don't care what happens to Snowden, they deny even his very existence.

They may not all care what happens to Snowden, but I think it's unfair to say they're merely showing off. I think these companies are acting on pretty high principle. They have little to gain by issuing such a statement, except the goodwill of people like us, but since they're all participating, such goodwill is evenly distributed and no one of them derives an advantage from it. Whereas they all depend on good relations with various bits of the federal government, which they risk offending with this statement.
Post reply on HN